Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

Stent A pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: Is it always necessary?

The establishment of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is considered the most common and, concomitantly, the most serious complication associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The search for either technical modifications of the operative technique or pharmaceutical interventions that could possibly aid in decreasing the incidence of this often-devastating complication appears justified. The stenting of the pancreatic duct, with the use of either internal or external stents, has been evaluated in this direction. In theory, it is an approach that could eliminate many pathophysiological factors responsible for the occurrence of a POPF. The purpose of the present study was to review the current data regarding the role of pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of POPF, after PD, by using PubMed and Reference Citation Analysis. In general, previous studies seem to highlight the superiority of external stents over their internal counterparts in regard to the incidence of POPF; this is at the cost, however, of increased morbidity associated mainly with the stent removal. Certainly, the use of an internal stent is a less invasive approach with acceptable results and is definitely deprived of the drawbacks arising through the complete diversion of pancreatic juice from the gastrointestinal tract. Bearing in mind the scarcity of high-quality data on the subject, an approach of reserving stent placement for the high-risk for POPF patients and individualizing the selection between the use of an internal or an external stent according to the distinct characteristics of each individual case scenario appears appropriate.

Postoperative Opioid Use Is Associated with Increased Rates of Grade B/C Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a major source of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. This study examined the association between postoperative opioid use and CR-POPF in the context of opioid-sparing postoperative care.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy between October 2016 and April 2022 at a single institution. Patients who developed CR-POPF were compared to controls. Multivariable regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with CR-POPF.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients underwent 187 open, 20 laparoscopic, and 74 robotic-assisted operations. The rate of CR-POPF was 21% (n = 58). CR-POPF rate declined from 32 to 8% over the study period (p < 0.001). Median oral morphine equivalents (OME) administered on POD 0-1 and 0-3 were 94 and 129 mg, respectively, in patients who did not develop a fistula versus 130 and 180 mg in those who did (both p ≤ 0.001). POD 0-3 OME (OR 1.11, p = 0.044) was independently associated with increased odds of CR-POPF, with each additional 50 mg (equivalent to 10 tramadol pills) increasing the relative risk by 11% and absolute risk by 2%.

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative opioid use after distal pancreatectomy was associated with increased odds of CR-POPF. Decreasing perioperative opioid use through enhanced postoperative management is a low-cost and generalizable approach that may reduce rates of CR-POPF after distal pancreatectomy.

Continuous irrigation after pancreatectomy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy vs. end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center retrospective study

Background and Objective

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common critical complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and is the primary reason for increased mortality and morbidity after PD. We aim to investigate the clinical significance of a novel approach, i.e., end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy, for patients with PD.

Methods

The clinical data of 65 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at the Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, from September 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Forty patients underwent end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy, and 25 underwent the novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy. No significant differences were observed in pancreatic fistula, intraperitoneal infection, intraperitoneal bleeding, reoperation, postoperative hospital stay, or perioperative death between the two groups. However, the novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy group had significantly shorter operation duration (32.6 ± 5.1 min vs. 8.3 ± 2.2 min, p < 0.001). The incidence of pancreatic fistula in the novel pancreaticojejunostomy group was 12%, including two cases of grade A POPF and only one case of grade B POPF. No cases of grade C POPF occurred. No deaths were observed during the perioperative period.

Conclusions

The novel anastomosis method leads to a shorter operation duration than the traditional anastomosis method and does not increase postoperative complications. In conclusion, it is a simplified and feasible method for pancreatic anastomosis.

Duct-to-mucosa versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013 and last updated in 2017. Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Although carbon dioxide meets most of the requirements for pneumoperitoneum, the absorption of carbon dioxide may be associated with adverse events. Therefore, other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases (e.g. carbon dioxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and room air) used for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers on 15 October 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants (irrespective of age, sex, or race) undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs, randomising 583 participants, comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum: nitrous oxide (four trials), helium (five trials), or room air (one trial) was compared to carbon dioxide. All the RCTs were single-centre studies. Four RCTs were conducted in the USA; two in Australia; one in China; one in Finland; one in Iran; and one in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants ranged from 27.6 years to 49.0 years. Four trials randomised participants to nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (132 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (128 participants). None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 8.85; 3 studies, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (Peto OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.31; 3 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events related to either nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (4 studies, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Four trials randomised participants to helium pneumoperitoneum (69 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (75 participants) and one trial involving 33 participants did not state the number of participants in each group. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of helium pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.72; 3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (5 studies, 177 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum (3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial randomised participants to room air pneumoperitoneum (70 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (76 participants). The trial was at high risk of bias. There were no cardiopulmonary complications, serious adverse events, or deaths observed related to either room air or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum.    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on any of the primary outcomes, including cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, and serious adverse events. The safety of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established, especially in people with high anaesthetic risk.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.

The Contribution of a Collagen Patch Coated With Fibrin Glue in Sealing Upper Gastrointestinal Defects: An Experimental Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sealing primary upper gastrointestinal (GI) perforations with a collagen patch coated with fibrin glue (Tachosil^®).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty New Zealand rabbits were used in this study. An iatrogenic gastric perforation was created, and primary repair was performed on the control group. Tachosil^®, without suturing the deficit, was used in the intervention group.

RESULTS

Leakage was observed in 3 (20%) and 2 rabbits (13.3%) in the control and intervention group, respectively; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.62). Moreover, adhesions formed in 10/15 and all rabbits in the intervention and control group, respectively (p=0.014); however, based on the Zuhlke adhesion's classification, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A collagen patch coated with fibrin glue is not a replacement but can be considered a safe option for the reinforcement of suturing, preventing leakages in the upper GI tract.

The using of sealants in pancreatic surgery: A Systematic Review

Background

POPF derives from the pancreatic stump, which follows pancreatic resection and the pancreatoenteric anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Since 1978 sealants have been used in pancreatic surgery to prevent pancreatic fistula after resection of the pancreatic head and tail or for the management of trauma and the treatment of low-output pancreatic fistula. Different types of fibrin sealants have been evaluated for their potential to reduce the occurrence of POPF.

Methods

A systematic search of the electronic literature was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to obtain access to all publications, especially clinical trials, randomised controlled trials, and systematic reviews concerning fibrin sealants pancreatic surgery. Searching for “fibrin sealants pancreas,” we found a total of 73 results on Pubmed, 61 on Scopus, and 14 on Cochrane Library (148 total results).

Results

Eighteen studies were found on literature, following the criteria already described, concerning the use of fibrin sealants in pancreatic surgery. All articles described were published in the period between 1989 and 2019.

Most of these were single centre studies. A total of 1032 patients were enrolled in this review. In the studies, sealants were used to reinforce pancreatic anastomoses and for the occlusion of the main pancreatic duct.

Conclusion

CR-POPF is a fearful complication of pancreatic surgery; among the possible solutions to reduce the risk of onset, sealants were used on the pancreatic stump; today the sealants should be considered such as an option to reduce the CR-POPF, but the routine use in clinical practice has to be validated.

•

Discuss the use of sealants in pancreatic surgery.

•

Compare the application of sealants on pancreatic stump and the effect on p-popf

•

Describe the previous experiences reported in literature.

Autologous transplantation of multilayered fibroblast sheets prevents postoperative pancreatic fistula by regulating fibrosis and angiogenesis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a serious complication after gastrointestinal or pancreatic surgery. Despite intensive investigations, the occurrence has not significantly decreased in the past decades. The aims of this study were to clarify the pathophysiology of POPF and establish the preventive measures using multilayered fibroblast sheets.

METHODS

We developed a pancreatic fistula (PF) model of rat with transection of the splenic duct and surrounding pancreatic parenchyma. Multilayered fibroblast sheets prepared from tails were autologously transplanted to this model. The preventive effect was biochemically and histologically evaluated by measuring the ascitic levels of pancreatic enzymes and conducting immunohistochemistry and real-time polymerase chain reaction analyses of pancreatic tissue. Findings were compared to those obtained with acellular materials simply sealing the wound.

RESULTS

In the PF model, the ascitic levels of pancreatic enzymes were transiently up-regulated. Inflammation and necrosis were histologically observed in a wide range. Islets were damaged even in remote areas. Transplantation of multilayered fibroblast sheets dramatically reduced the ascitic leakage of enzymes, suppressed inflammation, and broadly preserved the islets. Compared with acellular materials, these sheets offered superior prevention of cellular activity through the spaciotemporal regulation of fibrosis and angiogenesis. Notably, the leakage hole appeared to have been plugged with the fibrotic matrix, which might have been the most crucial mechanism minimizing pancreatic damage.

CONCLUSIONS

The autologous transplantation of multilayered fibroblast sheets significantly prevented PF and protected the pancreas, underscoring the potential utility of this approach for POPF prevention.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

Albumin Difference as a New Predictor of Postoperative Complications following Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications after pancreatectomy are a challenging problem due to their high incidence and serious consequences. The majority of studies have focused on a specific complication, but data on predictors of overall postoperative complications (OPCs) are limited.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent pancreatectomy at a single institute between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate predictors of the outcomes of interest. The Clavien-Dindo classification and comprehensive complication index (CCI) were used to assess postoperative complications and the severity of postoperative complications. The relationship between predictors and the CCI was evaluated by linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 490 patients were divided into a training group (n = 339) and a validation group (n = 151). The rate of OPCs was 44.25%. Fluid transfusion and albumin difference (AD) were predictors of OPCs. AD showed a good discrimination (AUC = 0.70) and good calibration in the validation cohort. AD was associated with complications, including pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, delayed gastric emptying, and re-intervention, and was positively correlated with complication severity. Intraoperative blood loss and preoperative albumin were independent predictors of AD.

CONCLUSIONS

AD, a variable that reflects dynamic physiological changes is a new and accessible predictor of OPCs following pancreatectomy.

Blumgart anastomosis reduces the incidence of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Recently, Blumgart anastomosis (BA) has been found to have some advantages in terms of decreasing POPF compared with other pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) using either the duct-to-mucosa or invagination approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness of BA versus non-Blumgart anastomosis after PD. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Library were systematically searched for studies published from January 2000 to March 2020. One RCT and ten retrospective comparative studies were included with 2412 patients, of whom 1155 (47.9%) underwent BA and 1257 (52.1%) underwent non-Blumgart anastomosis. BA was associated with significantly lower rates of grade B/C POPF (OR 0.38, 0.22 to 0.65; P = 0.004) than non-Blumgart anastomosis. Additionally, in the subgroup analysis, the grade B/C POPF was also reduced in BA group than the Kakita anastomosis group. There was no significant difference regarding grade B/C POPF in terms of soft pancreatic texture between the BA and non-Blumgart anastomosis groups. In conclusion, BA after PD was associated with a decreased risk of grade B/C POPF. Therefore, BA seems to be a valuable PJ to reduce POPF comparing with non-Blumgart anastomosis.